Who are the best MLB players at each position off the top of your head

[DrungoHazewood]

On 2/5/2020 at 7:43 AM, Frobby said:

I agree the quality of play generally improves over time.    But I’m judging players against their peers in the context of when they played.    

But that has its own complications.  When Ty Cobb was 25 the major leagues were probably about on par with the Korean League today.  Japan if you're being charitable.  What would Mike Trout hit in the KBO?  How much better than the average KBO player would Trout be?  In a primitive league Old Hoss Radbourne might have been 15 or 20 wins above replacement, but Barry Bonds and a 50-gallon drum of steroids wasn't that good in modern baseball.

[Frobby]

55 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

But that has its own complications.  When Ty Cobb was 25 the major leagues were probably about on par with the Korean League today.  Japan if you're being charitable.  What would Mike Trout hit in the KBO?  How much better than the average KBO player would Trout be?  In a primitive league Old Hoss Radbourne might have been 15 or 20 wins above replacement, but Barry Bonds and a 50-gallon drum of steroids wasn't that good in modern baseball.

I agree it has its problems.    There’s all kinds of factors in play:

1.    African Americans barred from playing.

2.   Very little international talent in the majors for many years.

3.   Athletes are generally bigger, stronger, faster, in better physical condition.

4.   Different types of PED’s prevalent in certain periods (and in most cases we don’t know who used what).

5.   Counter to all that, baseball was a more widely played sport in the US in prior periods and there were fewer opportunities in other sports.

6.    Increased population, increased number of teams.

There’s not really any scientific way of filtering all that out, so I choose just to judge the players against the competition that existed when they played.    

[DrungoHazewood]

10 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I agree it has its problems.    There’s all kinds of factors in play:

1.    African Americans barred from playing.

2.   Very little international talent in the majors for many years.

3.   Athletes are generally bigger, stronger, faster, in better physical condition.

4.   Different types of PED’s prevalent in certain periods (and in most cases we don’t know who used what).

5.   Counter to all that, baseball was a more widely played sport in the US in prior periods and there were fewer opportunities in other sports.

6.    Increased population, increased number of teams.

There’s not really any scientific way of filtering all that out, so I choose just to judge the players against the competition that existed when they played.    

I think most people do something like that, but I think you have to at least eyeball a slope of history.  If you don't you see that a majority of the most dominant performances were 80, 100, 120+ years ago and could conclude that there was a golden age of Roman Gods who played the game back then and no one will ever match that. 

Mike Trout would most certainly hit something like .419 if he played in a league like the 1911 AL.

You should also add to your list the ever-increasing sophistication of player development.  In 1885 a good amateur/sandlot player might be signed by a MLB team on Tuesday and be the starting pitcher against the NY Giants on Wednesday.  In 1910 that player is probably signed by a Class D team where he stays for all of a year or two or three until Connie Mack's cousin's buddy happens to see him play against Waukeegen and suggests they give him train fare to Philly for a tryout.  It wasn't until after WWII that something sort of like today's development systems really took hold, and it continues to be refined all the time.  In the 1960s Earl was still wiring fake boxscores to the Orioles from Rochester to fool them into thinking somebody else was playing RF because Earl wanted a real RFer there.  Today the Orioles know where Norfolk's RF was positioned on every play.